from the consumers-have-no-seat-at-the-table dept

With various governments still insisting that ACTA negotiations must be done in near total secrecy, various folks are working hard to at least shine some sunlight on the details. Michael Geist discusses what he's been able to piece through, and it's not pretty. The only good news is that everything is still in the early stages, and there's some disagreement among the participating trade reps concerning how certain things should work. However, that's about the only good news. The bad news is that many of the provisions are clearly being submitted with significant "input" from industries who stand to benefit from greater IP protectionism -- and no effort has been made to see what impact the resulting output would have on everyone else.

Even more troubling are the specific details supplied by KEI, who includes some draft text, including a proposal pushed by the US and Japan to use ACTA to make certain forms of personal, non-commercial infringement a criminal offense as a "deterrent." Yes, this would include potential jailtime, even if the infringer had no intent to profit. Notice that this is happening in backrooms among trade representatives, rather than in public among elected officials -- especially as various countries have been increasingly open to the idea of exempting personal, non-commercial infringement from being subject to legal punishment. This "treaty" would force countries to put a halt to that, and then we'd hear all sorts of big-time IP defenders insist that we absolutely had to make these changes to the law to "live up to international treaties" which they helped write.

KEI also points out another downside to all of this being negotiated in secret. It appears that many of the trade representatives are ignorant of certain laws already in place in their own countries, as well as other legislation that is currently under consideration. For example, KEI notes the current debates over copyright laws concerning "orphaned works" which is a big issue in Congressional copyright discussions. Some of what's being pushed in ACTA would mess up those discussions -- but who cares, apparently, trade representatives, pushed on by industry representatives, seem to have no problem determining for themselves what copyright law should be all about.

Reader Comments

Paper Dragon

This super secret conspiracy sounds like an agreement that has little chance of being enforced anywhere. In most countries there would need to be new laws put in place designed specifically to support the agreed to items and without these laws, their expensive agreement is a paper dragon.

I cannot believe nor accept that anyone with a brain can believe that a business can at any step criminalize their own customers and thrive. The only way this can possibly continue to be formulated and implemented by labels, acts, promoters, and recording companies is, aside from the obvious fact that most of the constituents of these organizations are unimaginative Luddites whose best contribution to this "industry" (it stopped being art long ago) is the 5 martini lunch, is that their own customers have no clue, understanding, any worthwhile comprehension of the abuse, waste of talen, waste of imagination, and simple greed of these same martini guys and gals who are control, and the utter contempt they hold their own customers in. Perhaps if more music lovers where aware, just simply aware of the abuse they suffer under the hold of these labels and etc, could this in any shape survive. We need to make sure consumers are aware of the blatant contempt their so-called music labels (gangsters in my book) hold for them. I wonder if it would make a difference.

Re:

obviously you understand no arguments, as this has nothing to do with a videocam in a movie theatre. Go strawman elsewhere.

Meanwhile, substantial non-commercial infringement is so vague it could be treated as downloading a single song. Substantial by itself has no guidelines. When will people stop using adjectives in bills to try to sum things up?

Re: Re:

Here is a portion of his comments pertaining to "substantial, non-commercial infringement":

There is a section on “Unauthorized Camcording.” This provides that

Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied against any person who, without authorization of the holder of copyright or related rights in a motion picture or other audiovisual work, knowingly uses an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of or transmits to the public the motion picture or other audiovisual work, or any part thereof, from a performance of the motion picture or other audiovisual work in a motion picture exhibition facility open to the public.

Re: lock down creativity? YES WE CAN!

If Obama has shown one thing, it's that he's a man with many faces. He has shown himself to the transmitters of the world the face that everyone wants to see after 8 years of decadent, shameless corruption. His other face is the one that has learned well everything the "good" presidents did right and what the "bad" presidents did profitably. Don't let the flurry of Do Something Now action coming from the White House, nor His clean, deadpan delivery fool you - Bush set the standard so low even a senator from Illinois could get elected!

Time for a Tea Party...

I say we grab a ship full of CD's and DVD's and throw them into the harbor. Why not have another Boston Tea Party to show our displeasure. If it's good enough for our founding fathers, it's good enough for us!

Re: Time for a Tea Party...

I say we grab a ship full of CD's and DVD's and throw them into the harbor. Why not have another Boston Tea Party to show our displeasure. If it's good enough for our founding fathers, it's good enough for us!

Re: Time for a Tea Party...

A Good Use For Spam

What someone needs to do is put together a nice spam email about this in the same form as all the ones about dangerous product recalls from 10 years ago, new laws that were defeated 10 years ago, etc. and get folks to send them out. Once in the good old 'forward to everyone or the world will end' email loop everyone will eventually hear about this and some people may actually speak up to their elected representatives.

fairness

i agree that criminal penalties where no profit is intended is excessive. Conversely criminal penalties are warranted for commercial use. In fact, let’s extend that to patent protection as firms most often invest far more in patented technologies than others do in copyrighted works. By all means, let’s be even handed and fair.

As the neocons liked to say "if you have nothing to hide it shouldn't be a problem". The answer is to publish the final draft for 6 months and have a national referendum before passage. We would like to call their bluff.